they are just going to lie low until the US leaves.
wonder how his relocation to iran impacts his credibility with his followers, if it does at all.
Popularity means very little in Iraq. What matters is you have weapons and followers who are well paid and dedicated.
Which means they'll lie low for the next 20 years. Works for me. At what point does lying low become defeated? I'll just go ahead and replace the word now. In the future, when considering the use of the phrase lying low, replaced with defeated.
It's an observation I've made myself several times. The Jihadi really does have the luxury of time, as we do not. What the situation on the ground is come, say, next October will be the real barometer of success, in my estimation. We can hope (hope isn't a force multiplier, I know) that by then, the Iraqi Security Forces are up and just about fully functional and self sustaining, with minimal support from coalition ground troops. US air power is probably there to stay, with some quick strike rapid deployment force, but by then, the Iraqi's had better be able to handle the situation.
With his own followers? Not at all--if an Iraqi was following Al Sadr he or she was already pro-Iranian, and they can cite Mohammed retreating only to regroup and attack later as 'justification'.
With Iraqi Shi'ites in general, I think he's lost credibility. Most Iraqi Shi'ites regard Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani as their leader, and he is definitely anti-Iranian, regarding the Iranian clericalist regime a usurpers in their claim to lead Shia Islam, and regarding the 'Hastener' sect of which Ahmadinejad and his spiritual mentor Masab Yazdi are part as heretics.
(Al Sistani has also been objectively pro-US, except for a two-to-three month period last year when he tried to get Al Sadr back into Iraqi civil society. When that failed, he came out quietly for the suppression of all armed militias, and Al Maliki followed within a week.)